Monday, December 22, 2008
Enough of Fein and Anyone Else
Bruce Fein, a former attorney in the Reagan administration, has gotten more than his say when it comes to the press and its need for reflections on the Bush administration or presidential power in general--especially since some of what he says is wrong. I am not sure anyone would have listened to Fein had he not had the Reagan connection. It would be nice to see Washington-based journalists adding more than just his name to their Rolodex.
Case in point is this article by Lisa Mascaro of the "Las Vegas Sun" titled "Will Lawmakers Reclaim Power?" The article examines presidential power under the current Bush administration as well as presidential power with the incoming Obama administration--using this open letter from Senator Russ Feingold to Obama asking him to throw a bone to separation of powers in his inauguration speech. For my money, that should tell you about the current ability of Congress to uphold its end of the constitutional bargain when it requests the new president to take it easy on them.
As for Fein, here is an example of where he is wrong about the record of presidential power. Mascaro quotes Fein, reflecting about separation of powers during Clinton, saying this:
"Congress...did not protest when the Clinton administration engaged in military action in Kosovo without full congressional approval required under the War Powers Act..."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Congress passed legislation requiring US troops to remain under US command, and not NATO command. Congress even conditioned appropriations on Clinton's use of troops in the Balkans. To say that the Congress sat back and allowed Clinton to run roughshod over them is just wrong. What is puzzling about the Congress under Clinton and Bush II is that the Republicans from 1995-2000 were very aggressive in seeking to grant itself a greater role over domestic and foreign policy and then played dead from 2001-2006.
What Congress should be prepared for once Obama takes office in 2009 is that it will need to fight to maintain its role in this constitutional system and not sit back and hope that the new president will grant them anything. Only then will Congress live up to its responsibilities under the Constitution.
|
Case in point is this article by Lisa Mascaro of the "Las Vegas Sun" titled "Will Lawmakers Reclaim Power?" The article examines presidential power under the current Bush administration as well as presidential power with the incoming Obama administration--using this open letter from Senator Russ Feingold to Obama asking him to throw a bone to separation of powers in his inauguration speech. For my money, that should tell you about the current ability of Congress to uphold its end of the constitutional bargain when it requests the new president to take it easy on them.
As for Fein, here is an example of where he is wrong about the record of presidential power. Mascaro quotes Fein, reflecting about separation of powers during Clinton, saying this:
"Congress...did not protest when the Clinton administration engaged in military action in Kosovo without full congressional approval required under the War Powers Act..."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Congress passed legislation requiring US troops to remain under US command, and not NATO command. Congress even conditioned appropriations on Clinton's use of troops in the Balkans. To say that the Congress sat back and allowed Clinton to run roughshod over them is just wrong. What is puzzling about the Congress under Clinton and Bush II is that the Republicans from 1995-2000 were very aggressive in seeking to grant itself a greater role over domestic and foreign policy and then played dead from 2001-2006.
What Congress should be prepared for once Obama takes office in 2009 is that it will need to fight to maintain its role in this constitutional system and not sit back and hope that the new president will grant them anything. Only then will Congress live up to its responsibilities under the Constitution.
